> I must confess I've never used a smiley in my
> life,

Sooner or later you will.

> and no desire to either.

Doesn't matter. You have no choice. Smileys
are the new lingua franca for messaging
across languages and cultures.

> The whole point of irony is that it's ironic, no?
> Don't we trust others to "get" what we mean?

Unfortunately this does not work well enough
across different languages and cultures.

> Do we need symbols for irony, paradox and
> double entendre when not only does a statement
> have more than one interpretation but the smiley
> reduces this to a single symbol?

Smileys are nothing more than symbolic alerts
that the intended meaning may not be obvious,
or may be different from the literal one. They do
not change meanings or reduce them to single
symbols. Many smileys encode facial expressions.

> Etc

I moved DK's post to a new topic, not to attack him on his use of smileys, but just to say that I don't think smileys are a "new lingua franca". English is the new lingua franca. In other parts of the world new world Spanish is a lingua franca, and I daresay the same goes for Russian (spoken or written in former USSR satellite states) and some form of Chinese.

Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.

If you want to post a joke, post it as a joke. Make it funny for other people. Adding a smiley often means: "I think I'm funny," the most dreaded words at a cocktail party (remember those?).

There's also this habit some people have of posting really angry stuff, calling everyone an idiot and capping pretty much every sentence with a smiley, like the adorno guy.

There aren't too many smiley guys here, fortunately, but generally I tend to skip smiley-infested posts; I'm not going to decode some lazy jokes. And what is wrong with the words "just kidding"?

For people who had not encountered the beginning of this discussion on the merry antivax topic: the first part of my OP from "I must confess" to "Etc" is a quote from that topic. It's not me. Sorry if that was typographically unclear. Some people would add a smiley here.

>
> I moved DK's post to a new topic, not to attack him on his use of smileys, but just to say that I don't think smileys are a "new lingua franca". English is the new lingua franca. In other parts of the world new world Spanish is a lingua franca, and I daresay the same goes for Russian (spoken or written in former USSR satellite states) and some form of Chinese.
>
> Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.

I wonder if "Have a nice birthday!" without a partying smiley gets the same message across as with it. It feels different to me.

Henk

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:14:16 AM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> >
> > I moved DK's post to a new topic, not to attack him on his use of smileys, but just to say that I don't think smileys are a "new lingua franca". English is the new lingua franca. In other parts of the world new world Spanish is a lingua franca, and I daresay the same goes for Russian (spoken or written in former USSR satellite states) and some form of Chinese.
> >
> > Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
> I wonder if "Have a nice birthday!" without a partying smiley gets the same message across as with it. It feels different to me.
>
> Henk

It’s as simple and clear to me as the fact that communicating via the internet lacks a dimension that face to face conversation has. An in-person smile that comes from the heart signals that one’s intentions are benign - not meant to hurt another’s’ feelings.

I’ve long believed that simple truths evade those who think too much! (😁)!!

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 1:07:32 PM UTC+1, JohnGavin wrote:
>
> It’s as simple and clear to me as the fact that communicating via the internet lacks a dimension that face to face conversation has. An in-person smile that comes from the heart signals that one’s intentions are benign - not meant to hurt another’s’ feelings.
>
> I’ve long believed that simple truths evade those who think too much! (😁)!!

Two of the downsides of internet communication is 1) it's quick 'n' easy and 2) it's usually from one's familiar surroundings. Which is why many people don't make that essential communicating step, i.e. they don't realize another person IS another person, rather than a miniature internet figure you can just knock over.

On 11/30/2021 7:07 AM, JohnGavin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:14:16 AM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>
>>> I moved DK's post to a new topic, not to attack him on his use of smileys, but just to say that I don't think smileys are a "new lingua franca". English is the new lingua franca. In other parts of the world new world Spanish is a lingua franca, and I daresay the same goes for Russian (spoken or written in former USSR satellite states) and some form of Chinese.
>>>
>>> Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
>> I wonder if "Have a nice birthday!" without a partying smiley gets the same message across as with it. It feels different to me.
>>
>> Henk
>
> It’s as simple and clear to me as the fact that communicating via the internet lacks a dimension that face to face conversation has. An in-person smile that comes from the heart signals that one’s intentions are benign - not meant to hurt another’s’ feelings.
>
> I’ve long believed that simple truths evade those who think too much! (😁)!!
>

Of course. Emojis substitute for the lack of visual and vocal cues. I am a person who uses sarcasm frequently. Too frequently, some would say. Some people just don't get and don't like sarcasm. They think it's hostile. If you deliver a sarcastic remark in deadpan, many people won't recognize it. If you smirk or roll your eyes, they might.

This is not rocket science.

On 11/30/21 3:48 AM, Herman wrote:

> I moved DK's post to a new topic, not to attack him on his use of smileys, but just to say that I don't think smileys are a "new lingua franca". English is the new lingua franca. In other parts of the world new world Spanish is a lingua franca, and I daresay the same goes for Russian (spoken or written in former USSR satellite states) and some form of Chinese.
>
> Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
>
> If you want to post a joke, post it as a joke. Make it funny for other people. Adding a smiley often means: "I think I'm funny," the most dreaded words at a cocktail party (remember those?).
>
> There's also this habit some people have of posting really angry stuff, calling everyone an idiot and capping pretty much every sentence with a smiley, like the adorno guy.
>
> There aren't too many smiley guys here, fortunately, but generally I tend to skip smiley-infested posts; I'm not going to decode some lazy jokes. And what is wrong with the words "just kidding"?
>

I post jokes a lot, but some jokes, taken literally, could cause people
to think that I'm to be taken seriously, when most of the time I'm not.
I've told enough good and bad jokes to know that even the most
outrageous parody will be taken seriously by someone. Whenever I think
that the possibility that my words would be taken seriously and cause
hurt, anger or the wrong idea, I insert the smiley. :-)

-Owen

I don't know why, but this seems a good moment to briefly remember John Wiser, who could be rude, but often was hilarious.

> I must confess I've never used a smiley in my
> life,

> Sooner or later you will.

No I won't!

On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 08:35:06 UTC+11, Herman wrote:
> I don't know why, but this seems a good moment to briefly remember John Wiser, who could be rude, but often was hilarious.

I use a smiley to convey a statement that might involve "tongue-in-cheek". Virtually impossible to convey without some extra indication.

Ray Hall, Taree

Herman schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2021 um 09:48:21 UTC+1:
> Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.

Not saying that I completely disagree with your viewpoint - I would have to think more about it - but it might be interesting to point out that Vladimir Nabokov seems to have been quite favourable in regards to a "typographical sign of a smile". Maybe he would think differently now though.

Vladimir Nabokov in an interview in the New York Times (1969):

" How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of
the immediate past?

I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round
bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your
question."

http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter11.txt

Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 13:20:57 UTC+1:
> Herman schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2021 um 09:48:21 UTC+1:
> > Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
> Not saying that I completely disagree with your viewpoint - I would have to think more about it - but it might be interesting to point out that Vladimir Nabokov seems to have been quite favourable in regards to a "typographical sign of a smile". Maybe he would think differently now though.
>
> Vladimir Nabokov in an interview in the New York Times (1969):
>
> " How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of
> the immediate past?
>
> I often think there should exist a special typographical
> sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round
> bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your
> question."
>
> http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter11.txt

After reflecting a bit more on what Nabokov and what you said, I have to agree with you (at least in regards o most cases). Your general criticism seems to perfectly describe how Nabokov failed in answering the question and how his answer is actually an insult to the interviewer and reader, as well his own intellect.

He reduces a whole mass of feelings and thoughts down to an abstract and primitive sign similar to a road sign (which as opposed to using a smiley in a conversation seems to make quite a bit more sense). I think it may actually be more than the product of some simple lazyness, but maybe more of how the world affects the people living within it. People in the world today – as free as it suggest to be - seem to be reduced more and more of being nothing more than a function, a thing in a gigantic system. So, as people are becoming more and more alienated from their own nature, by being treated as things; people also seem to be more and more incapable of expresssing their own emotions.

Quote by Adorno:
„Always with Beckett there is a technical reduction to the extreme. … But this reduction is really what the world makes out of us …that is the world has made out of us these stumps of men … these men who have actually lost their I, who are really the products of the world in which we live.“

It is indeed a baffling thing to say for a novelist as intricate and expressive as Nabokov.

Op woensdag 1 december 2021 om 18:49:34 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 13:20:57 UTC+1:
> > Herman schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2021 um 09:48:21 UTC+1:
> > > Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
> > Not saying that I completely disagree with your viewpoint - I would have to think more about it - but it might be interesting to point out that Vladimir Nabokov seems to have been quite favourable in regards to a "typographical sign of a smile". Maybe he would think differently now though.
> >
> > Vladimir Nabokov in an interview in the New York Times (1969):
> >
> > " How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of
> > the immediate past?
> >
> > I often think there should exist a special typographical
> > sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round
> > bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your
> > question."
> >
> > http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter11.txt
> After reflecting a bit more on what Nabokov and what you said, I have to agree with you (at least in regards o most cases). Your general criticism seems to perfectly describe how Nabokov failed in answering the question and how his answer is actually an insult to the interviewer and reader, as well his own intellect.
>
> He reduces a whole mass of feelings and thoughts down to an abstract and primitive sign similar to a road sign (which as opposed to using a smiley in a conversation seems to make quite a bit more sense). I think it may actually be more than the product of some simple lazyness, but maybe more of how the world affects the people living within it. People in the world today – as free as it suggest to be - seem to be reduced more and more of being nothing more than a function, a thing in a gigantic system. So, as people are becoming more and more alienated from their own nature, by being treated as things; people also seem to be more and more incapable of expresssing their own emotions.
>
> Quote by Adorno:
> „Always with Beckett there is a technical reduction to the extreme. … But this reduction is really what the world makes out of us …that is the world has made out of us these stumps of men … these men who have actually lost their I, who are really the products of the world in which we live.“

<g> From smiley to the typical German conflict between Geist und Leben (spirit and life).

BTW, did Nabokov really offend everyone when he dodged that impertinent question? He had only one other option, the one of Geza Anda chose. An interviewer once asked him who the greatest pianist of the century was. He answered without further ado, "I am!"

Henk

hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 19:27:42 UTC+1:
> Op woensdag 1 december 2021 om 18:49:34 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 13:20:57 UTC+1:
> > > Herman schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2021 um 09:48:21 UTC+1:
> > > > Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
> > > Not saying that I completely disagree with your viewpoint - I would have to think more about it - but it might be interesting to point out that Vladimir Nabokov seems to have been quite favourable in regards to a "typographical sign of a smile". Maybe he would think differently now though.
> > >
> > > Vladimir Nabokov in an interview in the New York Times (1969):
> > >
> > > " How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of
> > > the immediate past?
> > >
> > > I often think there should exist a special typographical
> > > sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round
> > > bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your
> > > question."
> > >
> > > http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter11.txt
> > After reflecting a bit more on what Nabokov and what you said, I have to agree with you (at least in regards o most cases). Your general criticism seems to perfectly describe how Nabokov failed in answering the question and how his answer is actually an insult to the interviewer and reader, as well his own intellect.
> >
> > He reduces a whole mass of feelings and thoughts down to an abstract and primitive sign similar to a road sign (which as opposed to using a smiley in a conversation seems to make quite a bit more sense). I think it may actually be more than the product of some simple lazyness, but maybe more of how the world affects the people living within it. People in the world today – as free as it suggest to be - seem to be reduced more and more of being nothing more than a function, a thing in a gigantic system. So, as people are becoming more and more alienated from their own nature, by being treated as things; people also seem to be more and more incapable of expresssing their own emotions.
> >
> > Quote by Adorno:
> > „Always with Beckett there is a technical reduction to the extreme. … But this reduction is really what the world makes out of us …that is the world has made out of us these stumps of men … these men who have actually lost their I, who are really the products of the world in which we live.“
> <g> From smiley to the typical German conflict between Geist und Leben (spirit and life).
>
> BTW, did Nabokov really offend everyone when he dodged that impertinent question? He had only one other option, the one of Geza Anda chose. An interviewer once asked him who the greatest pianist of the century was. He answered without further ado, "I am!"
>
> Henk

That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's affects as he indirectly does in answering the question, is quite an insult to human intellect in general. Affects need to be articulated to be experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way express one's affects. It also has the effect of dumbing people down, as they don't reflect enough on their own feelings anymore and opt for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It seems to have become a standardized mechanism in today's conversations (even in face-to-face conversations you hear things like: LOL) to express yourself through - as Herman put it - shortcuts.

Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 21:56:19 UTC+1:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 19:27:42 UTC+1:
> > Op woensdag 1 december 2021 om 18:49:34 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > > Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 13:20:57 UTC+1:
> > > > Herman schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2021 um 09:48:21 UTC+1:
> > > > > Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
> > > > Not saying that I completely disagree with your viewpoint - I would have to think more about it - but it might be interesting to point out that Vladimir Nabokov seems to have been quite favourable in regards to a "typographical sign of a smile". Maybe he would think differently now though.
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir Nabokov in an interview in the New York Times (1969):
> > > >
> > > > " How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of
> > > > the immediate past?
> > > >
> > > > I often think there should exist a special typographical
> > > > sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round
> > > > bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your
> > > > question."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter11.txt
> > > After reflecting a bit more on what Nabokov and what you said, I have to agree with you (at least in regards o most cases). Your general criticism seems to perfectly describe how Nabokov failed in answering the question and how his answer is actually an insult to the interviewer and reader, as well his own intellect.
> > >
> > > He reduces a whole mass of feelings and thoughts down to an abstract and primitive sign similar to a road sign (which as opposed to using a smiley in a conversation seems to make quite a bit more sense). I think it may actually be more than the product of some simple lazyness, but maybe more of how the world affects the people living within it. People in the world today – as free as it suggest to be - seem to be reduced more and more of being nothing more than a function, a thing in a gigantic system. So, as people are becoming more and more alienated from their own nature, by being treated as things; people also seem to be more and more incapable of expresssing their own emotions.
> > >
> > > Quote by Adorno:
> > > „Always with Beckett there is a technical reduction to the extreme. … But this reduction is really what the world makes out of us …that is the world has made out of us these stumps of men … these men who have actually lost their I, who are really the products of the world in which we live.“
> > <g> From smiley to the typical German conflict between Geist und Leben (spirit and life).
> >
> > BTW, did Nabokov really offend everyone when he dodged that impertinent question? He had only one other option, the one of Geza Anda chose. An interviewer once asked him who the greatest pianist of the century was. He answered without further ado, "I am!"
> >
> > Henk
> That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's affects as he indirectly does in answering the question, is quite an insult to human intellect in general. Affects need to be articulated to be experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way express one's affects. It also has the effect of dumbing people down, as they don't reflect enough on their own feelings anymore and opt for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It seems to have become a standardized mechanism in today's conversations (even in face-to-face conversations you hear things like: LOL) to express yourself through - as Herman put it - shortcuts.

*express instead of describe in the first sentence.

and ofc there are many different (possibly unlimited) options for Anda to answer that question. But Anda in contrast to Nabakov articulated his affect, while Nabokov indirectly wished for smileys to exist to articulate his affect for him - basically giving the impression that he needs help in expressing himself in form of a smiley.

On 12/1/21 12:49 PM, Marc S wrote:
> Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 13:20:57 UTC+1:
>> Herman schrieb am Dienstag, 30. November 2021 um 09:48:21 UTC+1:
>>> Smileys are shortcuts for people too lazy to clearly say what they're trying to say, so they add a smiley so as to say "bear with me, I'm a fun guy." It sort of implies: you do the work, I'm too busy doing other stuff, but I still want you to pay attention to what I'm saying.
>> Not saying that I completely disagree with your viewpoint - I would have to think more about it - but it might be interesting to point out that Vladimir Nabokov seems to have been quite favourable in regards to a "typographical sign of a smile". Maybe he would think differently now though.
>>
>> Vladimir Nabokov in an interview in the New York Times (1969):
>>
>> " How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of
>> the immediate past?
>>
>> I often think there should exist a special typographical
>> sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round
>> bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your
>> question."
>>
>> http://www.kulichki.com/moshkow/NABOKOW/Inter11.txt
>
> After reflecting a bit more on what Nabokov and what you said, I have to agree with you (at least in regards o most cases). Your general criticism seems to perfectly describe how Nabokov failed in answering the question and how his answer is actually an insult to the interviewer and reader, as well his own intellect.
>
> He reduces a whole mass of feelings and thoughts down to an abstract and primitive sign similar to a road sign (which as opposed to using a smiley in a conversation seems to make quite a bit more sense). I think it may actually be more than the product of some simple lazyness, but maybe more of how the world affects the people living within it. People in the world today – as free as it suggest to be - seem to be reduced more and more of being nothing more than a function, a thing in a gigantic system. So, as people are becoming more and more alienated from their own nature, by being treated as things; people also seem to be more and more incapable of expresssing their own emotions.
>
> Quote by Adorno:
> „Always with Beckett there is a technical reduction to the extreme. … But this reduction is really what the world makes out of us …that is the world has made out of us these stumps of men … these men who have actually lost their I, who are really the products of the world in which we live.“
>

Remember when Shakespeare wrote: "First thing we do, let's kill all the
lawyers. :-)"

-Owen

> That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's affects as he indirectly does in answering the question, is quite an insult to human intellect in general. Affects need to be articulated to be experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way express one's affects. It also has the effect of dumbing people down, as they don't reflect enough on their own feelings anymore and opt for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It seems to have become a standardized mechanism in today's conversations (even in face-to-face conversations you hear things like: LOL) to express yourself through - as Herman put it - shortcuts.

😀 is shorthand for grinning. Adorno is shorthand for Theodor W. Wiesengrund, a German philosopher, sociologist, psychologist, musicologist, and composer. If needed, we may give additional information.

There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.

Henk

> and ofc there are many different (possibly unlimited) options for Anda to answer that question. But Anda in contrast to Nabakov articulated his affect, while Nabokov indirectly wished for smileys to exist to articulate his affect for him - basically giving the impression that he needs help in expressing himself in form of a smiley.

They both expressed their feelings: by hiding them. Nabokov behind his need for a smiley, and Anda behind "I am!".

Henk

hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Mittwoch, 1. Dezember 2021 um 23:51:27 UTC+1:
> > That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's affects as he indirectly does in answering the question, is quite an insult to human intellect in general. Affects need to be articulated to be experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way express one's affects. It also has the effect of dumbing people down, as they don't reflect enough on their own feelings anymore and opt for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It seems to have become a standardized mechanism in today's conversations (even in face-to-face conversations you hear things like: LOL) to express yourself through - as Herman put it - shortcuts.
> 😀 is shorthand for grinning. Adorno is shorthand for Theodor W.. Wiesengrund, a German philosopher, sociologist, psychologist, musicologist, and composer. If needed, we may give additional information.
>

You are falling for a wrong logic here and as far as I understand, it is exactly this type of dialectical thinking that Adorno attacks.

As Adorno and Horkheimer write in "Dialectic of Enlightenment": "The world becomes chaos and synthesis salvation."

You are comparing two different things here (chaos), trying to subsume it under one label (synthesis), while neglecting the differences. The particular - or as Adorno also says the incommensurable - gets lost in universalisation. People try to make it easy for themselves following this sort of pattern: For example trying to equate antisemitism with racism, by arguing that antisemitism is the same as racism, but targeted at the jews instead of other minorities. This is incorrect. There is a big difference between antisemitism and racism. Your logic is similarly faulty.

Your faulty logic argues: 1) It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno and therefore => 2) it is also not primitive to express one's emotions using a primitive sign language.

This is unreasonable, and exactly the kind of an idealistic synthesis Adorno argues against. You have to understand the particular differences here and look reality in the eye.

It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, as Adorno is his last name. The relation to the object (Adorno) still remains concrete. But by using a primitive sign language as smileys to express one's emotions, the relation to the object (emotion) becomes totally abstract. The emotion you express by using a smiley is completely abstract. One can imagine people in pre-historic times shouting "ugga-ugga" if they were happy, or in today's times people using primitive icons to suggest that they are happy. But the way this happiness is expressed, is completely abstract. It does not have any individual and concrete quality.

To truly experience one's emotions, one should be able to articulate them as good as one can. But by using a primitive sign language to express emotions, we are sort of regressing back to pre-historic times in which people used the most primitive sounds to express their emotions "ugga ugga".

> There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.
>
> Henk

You may believe this. But you are not seeing the larger picture of it (social and psychological implications) and also - as pointed out above - you are neglecting the difference between calling Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Adorno where the object-relation stays concrete; and reducing complex emotions to a primitive symbol where the object-relation is totally abstract. Staying totally abstract is almost like saying nothing at all.

For example: Let's say some music reviewer has a rating system based on 5 smileys. So he reviews a new record, but not by concrectely explaining what he liked about said record, but by using smileys. Now you might know based on the number of smiley's (abstract info), how good the reviewer thought the record to be, but you have no concrete info on why.

> Your faulty logic argues: 1) It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno and therefore => 2) it is also not primitive to express one's emotions using a primitive sign language.
>
> This is unreasonable, and exactly the kind of an idealistic synthesis Adorno argues against. You have to understand the particular differences here and look reality in the eye.
>
> It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, as Adorno is his last name. The relation to the object (Adorno) still remains concrete. But by using a primitive sign language as smileys to express one's emotions, the relation to the object (emotion) becomes totally abstract. The emotion you express by using a smiley is completely abstract. One can imagine people in pre-historic times shouting "ugga-ugga" if they were happy, or in today's times people using primitive icons to suggest that they are happy. But the way this happiness is expressed, is completely abstract. It does not have any individual and concrete quality.
>
> To truly experience one's emotions, one should be able to articulate them as good as one can. But by using a primitive sign language to express emotions, we are sort of regressing back to pre-historic times in which people used the most primitive sounds to express their emotions "ugga ugga".
> > There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.
> >
> > Henk
> You may believe this. But you are not seeing the larger picture of it (social and psychological implications) and also - as pointed out above - you are neglecting the difference between calling Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Adorno where the object-relation stays concrete; and reducing complex emotions to a primitive symbol where the object-relation is totally abstract. Staying totally abstract is almost like saying nothing at all.
>
> For example: Let's say some music reviewer has a rating system based on 5 smileys. So he reviews a new record, but not by concrectely explaining what he liked about said record, but by using smileys. Now you might know based on the number of smiley's (abstract info), how good the reviewer thought the record to be, but you have no concrete info on why.

<g> ... where angels fear to thread.

Just one or two points.

"You have to look reality in the eye" and by that, you mean: understand the difference between the modes of being of 😀 and Adorno - if I understand you correctly.
The distinction you make is between concrete (supposedly Adorno) and abstract (supposedly 😀).
However, both are signs, and refer to something they themselves are not. In this case, to a historical person and an actual form of human behaviour.

The five stars refer to someone's high opinion of something else. There's no why, but since a review of a recording is strictly subjective, that's not a big loss. Also, you can always ask for it.

Although I'm tempted, I won't comment on your "ugga ugga". 😀

Henk

hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 16:54:57 UTC+1:
> > Your faulty logic argues: 1) It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno and therefore => 2) it is also not primitive to express one's emotions using a primitive sign language.
> >
> > This is unreasonable, and exactly the kind of an idealistic synthesis Adorno argues against. You have to understand the particular differences here and look reality in the eye.
> >
> > It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, as Adorno is his last name. The relation to the object (Adorno) still remains concrete. But by using a primitive sign language as smileys to express one's emotions, the relation to the object (emotion) becomes totally abstract.. The emotion you express by using a smiley is completely abstract. One can imagine people in pre-historic times shouting "ugga-ugga" if they were happy, or in today's times people using primitive icons to suggest that they are happy. But the way this happiness is expressed, is completely abstract. It does not have any individual and concrete quality.
> >
> > To truly experience one's emotions, one should be able to articulate them as good as one can. But by using a primitive sign language to express emotions, we are sort of regressing back to pre-historic times in which people used the most primitive sounds to express their emotions "ugga ugga".
> > > There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.
> > >
> > > Henk
> > You may believe this. But you are not seeing the larger picture of it (social and psychological implications) and also - as pointed out above - you are neglecting the difference between calling Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Adorno where the object-relation stays concrete; and reducing complex emotions to a primitive symbol where the object-relation is totally abstract. Staying totally abstract is almost like saying nothing at all.
> >
> > For example: Let's say some music reviewer has a rating system based on 5 smileys. So he reviews a new record, but not by concrectely explaining what he liked about said record, but by using smileys. Now you might know based on the number of smiley's (abstract info), how good the reviewer thought the record to be, but you have no concrete info on why.
> <g> ... where angels fear to thread.
>
> Just one or two points.
>
> "You have to look reality in the eye" and by that, you mean: understand the difference between the modes of being of 😀 and Adorno - if I understand you correctly.

Yes, although I would rather use the term objects instead of modes. You can compare these two objects, but you are not comparing them by carefully carving out the differences between them; but ignoring the differences altogether and equating them to be the same to make your argument. On a psychological level it seems to me, that your mind is trying to cope with the dissonance it has just encountered to establish somekind of harmony of thought again. The dissonance being that I have attacked people using smileys to express themselves, by calling this attitude primitive. It seems to me that you are being idealistic in proving your point neglecting reality.

Your thought process has identified two objects:

1) Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno is often being referred to as Adorno when people speak of him
2) Emotions like being "happy" are being expressed through the use of a typographical sign as Nabokov calls it

Your line of argumentation:

If 1) is not primitive, then 2) is not primitive either.

This is a logical fallacy in this case.

As I have tried to demonstrate: These two objects can't be equated to be the same "type of short cut". When referring to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, the relationship to the object you are trying to capture through the use of language remains concrete. Everyone has a concrete understanding of what (or more specifically: who) you mean. Even if you just say A, if the context is clear.

But if you express an emotion you have felt through the use of a primitive sign such as a smiley, the complex and highly individual abstract emotion you have felt is being reduced to a simple, basic, primitive, abstract, universalized icon. All individuality and sense of meaning of what the feeling might have meant on a deeper level is lost here. And nobody has a concrete understanding of the feelign you are trying to express (so you are basically just wasting his time). The ability of humans to express themselves as sophisticatedly as language today makes possible, was a hard earned ability (progression of languages). Yet now this hard earned ability is basically being hijacked by the use of "shortcuts", because of reasons of comfort. (Maybe: Age of comfort backfires, as people try to express themselves in the most easy way possible.)

The way people post smileys for example under youtube videos of classical music, reminds me of how in pre-historic times, people might have all used the same abstract grunts to address their admiration for something.

> The distinction you make is between concrete (supposedly Adorno) and abstract (supposedly 😀).
> However, both are signs, and refer to something they themselves are not. In this case, to a historical person and an actual form of human behaviour.

While I believe it to be true that every reference to an object can never grasp the object in it's entirety, you again fall for the same mistake you did earlier. There are different levels of abstraction, yet you try to say that every level of abstraction is the same (and thus subsuming every level of abstraction under one level of abstraction to make your argument. must be convient to consider all levels of abstraction to be the same). No, some abstractions are more concrete than others.

Marc S schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 19:43:39 UTC+1:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 16:54:57 UTC+1:
> > > Your faulty logic argues: 1) It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno and therefore => 2) it is also not primitive to express one's emotions using a primitive sign language.
> > >
> > > This is unreasonable, and exactly the kind of an idealistic synthesis Adorno argues against. You have to understand the particular differences here and look reality in the eye.
> > >
> > > It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, as Adorno is his last name. The relation to the object (Adorno) still remains concrete. But by using a primitive sign language as smileys to express one's emotions, the relation to the object (emotion) becomes totally abstract. The emotion you express by using a smiley is completely abstract. One can imagine people in pre-historic times shouting "ugga-ugga" if they were happy, or in today's times people using primitive icons to suggest that they are happy. But the way this happiness is expressed, is completely abstract.. It does not have any individual and concrete quality.
> > >
> > > To truly experience one's emotions, one should be able to articulate them as good as one can. But by using a primitive sign language to express emotions, we are sort of regressing back to pre-historic times in which people used the most primitive sounds to express their emotions "ugga ugga".
> > > > There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.
> > > >
> > > > Henk
> > > You may believe this. But you are not seeing the larger picture of it (social and psychological implications) and also - as pointed out above - you are neglecting the difference between calling Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Adorno where the object-relation stays concrete; and reducing complex emotions to a primitive symbol where the object-relation is totally abstract. Staying totally abstract is almost like saying nothing at all.
> > >
> > > For example: Let's say some music reviewer has a rating system based on 5 smileys. So he reviews a new record, but not by concrectely explaining what he liked about said record, but by using smileys. Now you might know based on the number of smiley's (abstract info), how good the reviewer thought the record to be, but you have no concrete info on why.
> > <g> ... where angels fear to thread.
> >
> > Just one or two points.
> >
> > "You have to look reality in the eye" and by that, you mean: understand the difference between the modes of being of 😀 and Adorno - if I understand you correctly.
> Yes, although I would rather use the term objects instead of modes. You can compare these two objects, but you are not comparing them by carefully carving out the differences between them; but ignoring the differences altogether and equating them to be the same to make your argument. On a psychological level it seems to me, that your mind is trying to cope with the dissonance it has just encountered to establish somekind of harmony of thought again. The dissonance being that I have attacked people using smileys to express themselves, by calling this attitude primitive. It seems to me that you are being idealistic in proving your point neglecting reality.
>
> Your thought process has identified two objects:
>
> 1) Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno is often being referred to as Adorno when people speak of him
> 2) Emotions like being "happy" are being expressed through the use of a typographical sign as Nabokov calls it
>
> Your line of argumentation:
>
> If 1) is not primitive, then 2) is not primitive either.
>
> This is a logical fallacy in this case.
>
> As I have tried to demonstrate: These two objects can't be equated to be the same "type of short cut". When referring to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, the relationship to the object you are trying to capture through the use of language remains concrete. Everyone has a concrete understanding of what (or more specifically: who) you mean. Even if you just say A, if the context is clear.
>
> But if you express an emotion you have felt through the use of a primitive sign such as a smiley, the complex and highly individual abstract emotion you have felt is being reduced to a simple, basic, primitive, abstract, universalized icon. All individuality and sense of meaning of what the feeling might have meant on a deeper level is lost here. And nobody has a concrete understanding of the feelign you are trying to express (so you are basically just wasting his time). The ability of humans to express themselves as sophisticatedly as language today makes possible, was a hard earned ability (progression of languages). Yet now this hard earned ability is basically being hijacked by the use of "shortcuts", because of reasons of comfort. (Maybe: Age of comfort backfires, as people try to express themselves in the most easy way possible.)
>
> The way people post smileys for example under youtube videos of classical music, reminds me of how in pre-historic times, people might have all used the same abstract grunts to address their admiration for something.
> > The distinction you make is between concrete (supposedly Adorno) and abstract (supposedly 😀).
> > However, both are signs, and refer to something they themselves are not.. In this case, to a historical person and an actual form of human behaviour.
> While I believe it to be true that every reference to an object can never grasp the object in it's entirety, you again fall for the same mistake you did earlier. There are different levels of abstraction, yet you try to say that every level of abstraction is the same (and thus subsuming every level of abstraction under one level of abstraction to make your argument. must be convient to consider all levels of abstraction to be the same). No, some abstractions are more concrete than others.

*The concrete dissonance your mind has been subjected to being: You have friends who use smileys who you do not consider primitive, yet I consider their attitude to be primitive, and so you are trying to defend their attitude.. Harmony = Your friends can't be primitive. Dissonance being: I consider their attitude to be primitive. You see people these days - even I - in many ways are still primitive, not saying they are totally uncivilized, but in many aspects we still just are primitive. I have to be critical about myself too: I used them too and it was stupid (just days ago). Maybe there might be particular moments where using smileys might be pproriate or sth... but right now I can't really think of one.

And to add: When talking about Adorno, it is the same object we are talking about. Your emotions are different than mine though in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests they are the same, which they are not. This needs to be articulated.

Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*" on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last silence.

Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:09:51 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> And to add: When talking about Adorno, it is the same object we are talking about. Your emotions are different than mine though in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests they are the same, which they are not. This needs to be articulated.
>
> Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*" on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last silence.

Adorno refers to the historical Wiesengrund, in your case as well as mine. However, for you, he is "even more than just a hobby" - for me, he is above all Kracauer's Icarus. The same goes for "Happy Birthday!" plus partying smiley. For you, it is stupid - for me, it does exactly what it should do: letting the addressee know that my wife's calendar is up to date.

Cognitive dissonance is from the 1960s and has become a tool to replace argument by diagnosis.

There are different levels of abstraction and different kinds of abstracta. I'm not sure what you have in mind. In any case, Adorno and 😀 are signs (not abstracta) and refer to concrete beings: a historical figure and behaviour - and, of course, signs, historical figures and behaviour have different modes of being.

You can do better than this, Marc!

Henk